On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:53:25 -0400, JDG wrote > The creation of > the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of "international > peace and security" that was in the collective interest of nations.
The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolve conflicts as peacefully as possible -- to avoid war. > it now becomes ever more > conceivable that the US could use the extraordinary imbalance of > power in its favor on behalf of human rights where it does not have > an immediate strategic interest. Yes, the Pax Americana idea -- we could use our military power to bring peace to the world. But being led by humans, odds are we won't. The idea that power corrupts isn't just a cliche. I see history telling us again and again of the arrogance of power, even in societies that were created from fine principles. And not just nations, but churches, businesses, and virtually any human institution is vulnerable to hubris and corruption. And we should trust that one nation with extraordinary power, including nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, won't misuse them? No, thanks. I'd rather involve other parties in the decision-making. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. > This logic, however, would preclude a country > intervening against a government conducting a genocide against its > own people. Please, please, please, you, Gautam and anybody else tempted to make this reductio ad absurdum argument. Cut it out. There is an enormous spectrum of possibilities between war and non-intervention. > Of course, a more concrete example, comes from the original > application of the Clinton Doctrine in Kosovo. As near as I can > tell from following the subsequent discussion, you have argued that > what I would call the "Kosovo War" was not a war at all, but a > police action. I am hoping that you can perhaps expand upon this > distinction. Certainly. The kind of collateral damage we're seeing in Iraq is unacceptable in a police action. Police, even SWAT teams and such, operate under very different rules. They target only the perpetrators. They don't destroy the infrastructure of the country. They don't replace local authority unless it is criminal. It is crime-fighting, not nation-building. > So, to return to the original question, if one interprets Saddam > Hussein as an "aggressor" under Catholic Just War theory But one cannot. By the Pope's own words, as well as by any reasonable interpretation of a just war. If we're going to talk about this from a Catholic perspective, we can hardly ignore the Pope's pleas for us to refrain from making war on Iraq, can we? I see endless war in our future if we do not at least listen to the voices of our friends (and now former friends) around the world and make some effort to build multinational support for such extreme measures. Otherwise, we're a nation built on checks and balances that has none at the international level. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
